Why does PvP have to be Non-Consensual to be considered 'Good PvP'?

fyerwall

There has been a lot of discussion as of late on the EQ:Next boards about PvP. One of the issue that has been stated is that if PvP is in any way consensual its bad PvP.

I originally posted this question in a thread there, but only got one answer which really wasn't much of an answer, so I thought I would ask it here;

Why does PvP have to be Non-Consensual to be considered 'Good PvP'?

Cruizerke

Even though the opposite will definately be argued. If the "Elite" PVPers can't force their will on anyone and everyone, it's not good.

 

Axehilt

Originally posted by fyerwall

There has been a lot of discussion as of late on the EQ:Next boards about PvP. One of the issue that has been stated is that if PvP is in any way consensual its bad PvP.

I originally posted this question in a thread there, but only got one answer which really wasn't much of an answer, so I thought I would ask it here;

Why does PvP have to be Non-Consensual to be considered 'Good PvP'?

I think most players feel exactly the opposite.  Consensual competitive games like Soccer, LoL, TF2, and Chess are vastly more popular than the MMORPGs which have non-consensual PVP.  Consensual competitive games dominate.

fyerwall

Originally posted by Robokapp
because consensual pvp is basically a battleground. the element of danger is nonexistent if you can prevent another player from killing you with you ... checkbox.

Thank you Robo for giving a valid point of view.

I guess my next question would be; Why does it matter if PvPers have the ability to flag themselves for PvP while others can stay PvE flagged? If Someone chooses not to participate, how does that impact your fun?

Nightgroper

Originally posted by Robokapp
because consensual pvp is basically a battleground. the element of danger is nonexistent if you can prevent another player from killing you with you ... checkbox.

Are you saying love can bloom on the battlegrounds, but danger can not? I beg to differ sir! I dash in and out of skirmishes, all while cowering behind any available mea-"team-mate" I can find! The danger is there.

 

I think it's more likely the thrill of the hunt at first, and then once they find prey, they play with their food for a bit. Also it's another way for them to show off how much time they have invested, and more they have accomplished in the game than you.

 

Though in contrast I somewhat like eve's pvp system as it adds to the world, slightly, making you feel like you're streaking through space trying to avoid pirates, or the authorities.

lugal

Something tells me all these threads about consensual pvp is a very well done spam, however; non-consensual pvp is a myth. You consent when you join a pvp server or a game with open pvp.

fyerwall

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by fyerwall

There has been a lot of discussion as of late on the EQ:Next boards about PvP. One of the issue that has been stated is that if PvP is in any way consensual its bad PvP.

I originally posted this question in a thread there, but only got one answer which really wasn't much of an answer, so I thought I would ask it here;

Why does PvP have to be Non-Consensual to be considered 'Good PvP'?

I think most players feel exactly the opposite.  Consensual competitive games like Soccer, LoL, TF2, and Chess are vastly more popular than the MMORPGs which have non-consensual PVP.  Consensual competitive games dominate.

Well that's what I am trying to figure out here. There are a lot of PvP centric games out there, but watching the threads about EQ:N, there are people saying for PvP to be good in an MMO it has to be FFA Non-consensual. Anything else would lead to bad PvP.

fyerwall

Originally posted by lugal
Something tells me all these threads about consensual pvp is a very well done spam, however; non-consensual pvp is a myth. You consent when you join a pvp server or a game with open pvp.

Eh, not really talking about a game that is already established with a set PvP system. The question pertains to if a game in development stated they were going to offer PvP, but not sure if they were going to be Consensual (have to flag PvP on/off) or non-consenual (FFA - everyone is attackable), why some people believe that if it isnt non-consensual, it isnt worth doing.

Arakazi

It creates tension and a sense of danger. Plus it's fun when you end up kicking the ass of the guy that tried to kill you. However, the problem is that most open world pvp is done by small gangs when they feel odds are in their favor and avoid more risky encounters, particularly when it's a full loot system. The other problem is griefing and ganking noobs. Personally I won't play these games unless invited by my clan and therefore have some measure of protection when I go into the game. However, most people who come into game such as mortal online or darkfall won't have that and will therefore experience the downside of the system with little or no protection and will quit soon after.

fyerwall

Originally posted by zymurgeist

If you logged into a FFA PvP game it's consensual by definition. There's no such thing unless you were somehow tricked into playing the game. It's another of those internet fallacies.

 

Good PvP is any PvP you enjoy. In other words it's an opinion and not subject to proof by factual evidence.

Again, not talking about already established games. If anyone logs into DarkFall and complains about its being FFA, its their own fault for not reading. What I am asking is, in general, why people think that if a game is going to have PvP, it has to be non-consensual (FFA) to be good.

Unknown

Personally I feel like non-consensual PvP, with a criminal/law system is the best way. Towns should be safe areas. Outside of town the majority of the area is PvP enabled but not lawless FFA. Small portions of the world outside of towns would be full on PvP with no repercussions.

The lawless full on PvP areas are typically where the epic quests take you. Higher risk/higher reward. Many of the group dungeon entrances could be located in the lawless areas.

In the majority of the world, there would be a criminal/law system that would police PvP behavior. In these areas you could flag yourself for FFA PvP if that is the life that you prefer. Like minded individuals could still FFA PvP without repercussion. However if not flagged for FFA PvP you would be somewhat "protected" by the criminal system.

The criminal system would tally a PK to a player that started the PvP fight in the law protected areas. The criminal system would also flag that person for FFA PvP as soon as they engage a player who was not flagged for FFA PvP. This enables other players to come to the aid of the player who was not seeking PvP without negative pepercussions.

The amount of PKs a player has tallied in a given period of time would determine how long they would remain flagged for FFA PvP after the engagement. This enables the "victim" to get revenge or to get help from friends. This sort of system really promotes community, politics, friendships, etc.

An added bonus would be to have a gear score system that would cause a PK'er/criminal to lose their best piece of gear if killed. This adds incentive for them to not lose if they choose to engage in non-consensual combat. It heightens the level of excitement for them as well as providing incentive for others to police the criminals.

I would really love to see a modern game use this system. I would definitely make it my main, if not only, MMO.

P.S. If this sounds familiar to anyone, what I described is exactly the system that is in Soul of the Ultimate Nation. That game is too dated in graphics and player movement for me to consider playing anymore. However 4-5 years ago I thoroughly enjoyed the PvP aspect of that game.

P.S.S. I also really liked how instead of, or in addition to, a level requirement for equipping gear... There was a stat requirement.

Arakazi

Originally posted by fyerwall

Originally posted by zymurgeist

If you logged into a FFA PvP game it's consensual by definition. There's no such thing unless you were somehow tricked into playing the game. It's another of those internet fallacies.

 

Good PvP is any PvP you enjoy. In other words it's an opinion and not subject to proof by factual evidence.

Again, not talking about already established games. If anyone logs into DarkFall and complains about its being FFA, its their own fault for not reading. What I am asking is, in general, why people think that if a game is going to have PvP, it has to be non-consensual (FFA) to be good.

I'm not big on PvP, but "non consensual" PvP games requires more thought, in that you cannot go where you like and do as you please. In a way the game is less free than it otherwise would be as it punishes recklessness and stupidity. Take EVe for example, I cannot just jump into a Raven and go into null sec and start ratting, I will be podded the moment I stepped into low sec. If I wanted to go into null I would probably need a jump bridge or at least a properly fitted covert ops ship. Once I reached null I will have to be wary and keep an eye on local and alliance chat to see who is in the area. It could be said that PvP in non consensual games is all about preparation and good judgement rather than any twitch combat skills. Overall it can be a rewarding experience when things click together, but I find the constraints and drama that come with it tiresome at times.

Axehilt

Originally posted by fyerwall

Well that's what I am trying to figure out here. There are a lot of PvP centric games out there, but watching the threads about EQ:N, there are people saying for PvP to be good in an MMO it has to be FFA Non-consensual. Anything else would lead to bad PvP.

Well I mentioned what types of PVP are popular with most players, but that doesn't mean you can't intentionally make a game with PVP that isn't what most players want.

For me personally I wouldn't consider it good MMO PVP until it eliminated non-skill factors.  So it would be a bit like if Planetside 1 had MMORPG combat instead of MMOFPS combat.  It'd be a giant world with three empires, battling over many continents with many cities per continent.  It would have a population limit per continent (perhaps 200v200v200 would be the max fight size, like PS1) and progression would only make you more flexible, not more powerful (a day-1 newbie character in PS1 could go toe-to-toe with a year-5 veteran; skill determined the winner.)

But like I said, players like me are possibly a much smaller group than the two MMORPG playing groups I described earlier, and those other two groups aren't strongly interested in PVP in the first place.

One thing's for sure though: if PVP is only FFA non-consensual in EQ:N I won't end up playing long because I'll be forced into bad PVP and there are too many fun games out there to waste my time being forced into bad PVP.

xpowderx

While gankers like the idea of open pvp. The reality is it kills servers. See much happening on a EQ PVP server? There is one! Has the lowest population of any EQ server.

This applies and is a inherent problem with most mmos. In Rift, which has its ups and downs with pvp servers. Most stay a couple months and move on to a pve server. PVP in Rift is quite fun. But the majority of it is done on battlefields, rifts or quests.

Even Ultima experienced a huge population dropback in the day due to open pvp. In the day of Dark Age of Camelot(DAOC) there was a server named Mordred. It was a fully open pvp server. Within 2 months it was the lowest pop server out of them all.

The funny thing is DAOC set the standard in a big way of what pvp is. Just Mordred brought the bad.

IMO PVP should  always be consentual. As if it is not. It is nothing more than selfish ganking to make some dude feel like he has the powah. When in reality he only does it because he has other issues in his life. No teamwork, no sport in it. Which is why most legitimate pvpers pvp in the first place.

SilverKnight1966

Originally posted by fyerwall

Originally posted by lugal
Something tells me all these threads about consensual pvp is a very well done spam, however; non-consensual pvp is a myth. You consent when you join a pvp server or a game with open pvp.

Eh, not really talking about a game that is already established with a set PvP system. The question pertains to if a game in development stated they were going to offer PvP, but not sure if they were going to be Consensual (have to flag PvP on/off) or non-consenual (FFA - everyone is attackable), why some people believe that if it isnt non-consensual, it isnt worth doing.

My favorite game happens to be exclusively PvP.  The limits are based on level to protect newbs starting out from well established players, but if the lowbie hits the established player voids that protection for 48 hours... usually for very brutal result.

zasten

Originally posted by fyerwall

I guess my next question would be; Why does it matter if PvPers have the ability to flag themselves for PvP while others can stay PvE flagged? If Someone chooses not to participate, how does that impact your fun?

They miss out on their fun, because they can not annoy the shit out of another player, end of story! This is the only reason for requesting non-consensual pvp, so you can piss off other players to such an extent that you make them rage quit the game. If it did not matter so much, it would make no difference where the pvp was held, everybody that wanted to do so, could do so!

Loktofeit

Originally posted by fyerwall

Originally posted by Robokapp
because consensual pvp is basically a battleground. the element of danger is nonexistent if you can prevent another player from killing you with you ... checkbox.

Thank you Robo for giving a valid point of view.

I guess my next question would be; Why does it matter if PvPers have the ability to flag themselves for PvP while others can stay PvE flagged? If Someone chooses not to participate, how does that impact your fun?

It depends on the game. The more player actions can impact the game, the more flagging tends to violate that design. 

fyerwall

Originally posted by zasten

Originally posted by fyerwall

I guess my next question would be; Why does it matter if PvPers have the ability to flag themselves for PvP while others can stay PvE flagged? If Someone chooses not to participate, how does that impact your fun?

They miss out on their fun, because they can not annoy the shit out of another player, end of story! This is the only reason for requesting non-consensual pvp, so you can piss off other players to such an extent that you make them rage quit the game. If it did not matter so much, it would make no difference where the pvp was held, everybody that wanted to do so, could do so!

I agree with what you are saying as that is something a noticed from a lot of Pvpers over the last 20+ years of gaming. 

But Robo brought up a good point. You will sometimes have a player that lives to annoy others and then hides behind the PvE flag. Kind of like a foreign diplomat who commits a crime and hides behind "Diplomatic Immunity", so I can understand the desire to just kill someone like that on the spot.

 

willo248

If not everyone is vulnerable it really ruins the experience for me. For example if I see a player doing some PVE I want nothing more than to creep up on him, stab him in the back and steal his stuff. However if he was to have a 'pve flag' it would prevent this, which has happened more than once to me in other games.

This mechanic really removes from the game and makes it feel tame and dull to me.

fyerwall

Originally posted by willo248

If not everyone is vulnerable it really ruins the experience for me. For example if I see a player doing some PVE I want nothing more than to creep up on him, stab him in the back and steal his stuff. However if he was to have a 'pve flag' it would prevent this, which has happened more than once to me in other games.

This mechanic really removes from the game and makes it feel tame and dull to me.

But why should someone else who is playing a game to have fun have to endure being killed for no reason other than because it was fun for you?

Wouldn't that mechanic make the game less fun for them?

STYNKFYST

"Because pvpers want to gank noobs."

^This

It is more than this...but this sums it up. Has nothing to do with anything but history. The morons that destroyed PvP in other games are scaring off anyone that is already apprehensive about PvP. No one wants to play with the l33t twitch gamers that decided they like MMOs too. Who's only goal is to take yer stuff in a lopsided fight.

Theocritus

You have to realize that the majority of PVPers do not want anywhere enar a fair fight...They will use every hack, cheat, and unfair advantage...To them, it is all about "winning".......

SilverKnight1966

Some PvP players like the thrill of the hunt.  A good fight with a player who may or may not have been pre-prepared for it with an outcome that is not completely certain has a level of fun the gankers never understand... they just gank or get ganked.

 

Real PvP pros, any game, like fighting their friends.

azzamasin

Originally posted by lugal
Something tells me all these threads about consensual pvp is a very well done spam, however; non-consensual pvp is a myth. You consent when you join a pvp server or a game with open pvp.

Semantics aside that's false because only a certain element and niche player base ever plays those games.  I'd never play a Forced PvP game, thereby rendering your statement false because my option s to not play the game.  You see there always is an option and claiming otherwise is fool hardy.

azzamasin

Originally posted by fyerwall

Originally posted by willo248

If not everyone is vulnerable it really ruins the experience for me. For example if I see a player doing some PVE I want nothing more than to creep up on him, stab him in the back and steal his stuff. However if he was to have a 'pve flag' it would prevent this, which has happened more than once to me in other games.

This mechanic really removes from the game and makes it feel tame and dull to me.

But why should someone else who is playing a game to have fun have to endure being killed for no reason other than because it was fun for you?

Wouldn't that mechanic make the game less fun for them?

Yes, yes it would hence the never ending arguments on the matter.  It's why I have never, nor will I ever play on a PvP server in a Themepark MMO nor will I ever play a game with forced, non-consensual PvP.

 

At the end of the day, no one except SOE and a select few media types know the answer too.  Do I wish that EQN presents as a PvE centric MMO?  Of course, but I wouldn't be upset if the game presents with any type of consensual PvP through flagging, Faction Allegiances, Specific Zones setup for that style of game or specific servers with an always on PvP mode.  However if EQN presents with any amount of forced, non-consensual PvP.  I will simply move on, curse under my breath at the lack of short sightedness of MMO developers and go back wishing for a PvE centric sandbox MMO, all the while stuck in my boring "3-mother" type Themepark MMO.

Coated

Because you never hear anything about 'The Hero's Journey' being littered with friendly fights and consensual combat.